Trump / Biden Debate #1

[MillCreek]

Abolish prisons and venerate the housewife?  Hmmm.

[MechAg94]

Debate commission says it will make changes to format
https://www.khou.com/article/news/nation-world/debate-commission-changes-after-chaotic-first-trump-biden/507-13e81ed2-7f38-4c81-8671-9a797294ed0c

One possibility being discussed is to give the moderator the ability to cut off the microphone of one of the debate participants while his opponent is talking, according to a person familiar with the deliberations who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The next presidential debate is a town hall format scheduled for Oct. 15 in Miami.

IMO, if Biden was doing the interrupting and dominating the debate, this would not mentioned at all.  Either way, the debate format has already been agreed to.  I doubt Trump would agree to that. 

[RoadKingLarry]

While a good idea in theory I can readily seeing it abused by a moderator hostile to either candidate ( of course I mean Trump).
About the only way to keep it fair would be a visible counter showing each candidates "on" time, active and cumulative.

[Perd Hapley]

About the only way to keep it fair would be a visible counter showing each candidates "on" time, active and cumulative.

Now you're on to something.

It seems as though an obvious way to ensure fairness would be to both have an on-screen timer, and make the muting automatic. The moderator would have to turn on the speaking candidate's microphone, and the same switch would start a timer. Once it times out, it would automatically mute the candidate, and turn on his opponent's microphone. Once that times out, it could be reset to the next time interval, for rebuttals, or the next question, or whatever.

[DittoHead]

the debate format has already been agreed to.  I doubt Trump would agree to that. 

The format for the first debate was 2 minutes of uninterrupted speaking for each candidate followed by "open discussion". Trump agreed to that but did not follow those rules or the requests of the moderator (neither did Biden, but to a lesser extent). Unless there was a provision stating that mics must always be on, then they can change that without changing the overall format. Since the agreed upon rules and the moderator were ignored in the last debate, it's hard to complain too much about changing the rules going forward. Or, if the debate structure really is "no rules, scream as much as you want" then have that thunderdome arrangement agreed upon beforehand instead of pretending to have rules.

Also, cutting the mics can be done perfectly fairly. In the previous debate format they could have had only the one mic on for those first two minutes of each candidate with no problem or any unfairness. That simple. Open discussion relies a lot more on a fair moderator but it would be easy to build a debate structure with strict time limits that would be fair to each candidate and would allow back and forth discussion without the constant cross talk, shouting, and incoherence.

About the only way to keep it fair would be a visible counter showing each candidates "on" time, active and cumulative.

That would be an excellent addition to mic control.

[DittoHead]

It seems as though an obvious way to ensure fairness would be to both have an on-screen timer, and make the muting automatic. The moderator would have to turn on the speaking candidate's microphone, and the same switch would start a timer that mutes the speaker, and turns on the opponent's microphone, as soon as it times out.

Another excellent idea.

[Perd Hapley]

Another excellent idea.

But wait! There's more! (see edit)

[Ron]

In a week, the only thing the public will remember about the debate is that Trump dominated Biden in a bullshit contest.
- Scott Adams

[lee n. field]

Abolish prisons and venerate the housewife?  Hmmm.

"Christian nationalists!!!" 

Everyone needs a boogieman.

[Ben]

Some black proud boys members have something to say about being labeled white supremacists.

https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/10/01/i-didnt-see-this-coming-black-proud-boys-members-respond-to-joe-biden-calling-them-white-supremacists/

[MikeB]

According to a review by Ari Fleischer Biden was actually the first to interrupt during one of the two minute no interruption periods. Biden was also the first to truly get aggressive and to utter a personal insult, unless I’m mistaken.

Never the less Trump should have had a little more decorum and been a little less hostile. Biden has always been extremely aggressive, dismissive and acted like a fool in previous debates. He did it to Ryan and to Palin. Trump needed to counter that to an extent and being somewhat aggressive himself would certainly help that.

I’ve heard from some commentators and think I’m in agreement that Trump should have interrupted less since Biden loses his train of thought fairly consistently as well. He should have held the interruptions longer and let Biden ramble for a bit first. Of course idiot Wallace kept rescuing Biden and most of his questions were more or less attacks on Trump so to an extent that didn’t help matters.

I think having Chris Christy doing his debate prep was mistake. Christy is claiming that he didn’t prepare him to do the debate the way he did or something, but Christy was always aggressive sometimes overly so. I’m not going to take Christy entirely at his word.

What I do believe is that Trump should be distancing himself from people like Christy and Rudy Giuliani. Both of them are not truly conservative or libertarian and I think hurt him more than help him. Giuliani also appears to be losing it somewhat. I never was a fan of either. They both had good momentary periods, but over their careers were in my opinion net negative.

One thing about Trump that is both a positive and a negative is he does appear to be loyal to people. That generally is an admiral quality, but there are many examples of people turning on him or him sticking with people that tend to hurt more than hep him.

[MechAg94]

According to a review by Ari Fleischer Biden was actually the first to interrupt during one of the two minute no interruption periods. Biden was also the first to truly get aggressive and to utter a personal insult, unless I’m mistaken.

Never the less Trump should have had a little more decorum and been a little less hostile. Biden has always been extremely aggressive, dismissive and acted like a fool in previous debates. He did it to Ryan and to Palin. Trump needed to counter that to an extent and being somewhat aggressive himself would certainly help that.

I’ve heard from some commentators and think I’m in agreement that Trump should have interrupted less since Biden loses his train of thought fairly consistently as well. He should have held the interruptions longer and let Biden ramble for a bit first. Of course idiot Wallace kept rescuing Biden and most of his questions were more or less attacks on Trump so to an extent that didn’t help matters.

I think having Chris Christy doing his debate prep was mistake. Christy is claiming that he didn’t prepare him to do the debate the way he did or something, but Christy was always aggressive sometimes overly so. I’m not going to take Christy entirely at his word.

What I do believe is that Trump should be distancing himself from people like Christy and Rudy Giuliani. Both of them are not truly conservative or libertarian and I think hurt him more than help him. Giuliani also appears to be losing it somewhat. I never was a fan of either. They both had good momentary periods, but over their careers were in my opinion net negative.

One thing about Trump that is both a positive and a negative is he does appear to be loyal to people. That generally is an admiral quality, but there are many examples of people turning on him or him sticking with people that tend to hurt more than hep him.

I heard that same thing. 

I don't like the idea of cutting off microphones.  IMO, the whole idea of a debate like this is to see how the candidates handle interruptions and challenges.  IMO, the moderator interrupted Trump enough to make that pointless.  Of course, if you are a fan of Biden, it is a great idea.

[WLJ]

From Joe Biden's Twitter account:



It's a pretty blatant attempt to link Rittenhouse with white supremacists.

About that

Kyle Rittenhouse to file lawsuit against Biden campaign for libel, attorney says
https://www.lawofficer.com/kyle-rittenhouse-to-file-lawsuit-against-biden-campaign-for-libel-attorney-says/

[Angel Eyes]

Some black proud boys members have something to say about being labeled white supremacists.

https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/10/01/i-didnt-see-this-coming-black-proud-boys-members-respond-to-joe-biden-calling-them-white-supremacists/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLNDqxrUUwQ

(not implying anything about the Proud Boys, BTW)

[K Frame]

CNBC has an article touting polling as saying Biden won...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/01/biden-leads-polls-voters-say-he-beat-trump-in-first-debate.html

It's also saying that Trump is running out of time to "change the trajectory of the election race..."

Haven't we heard those words before?

Oh yeah... before the 2016 election, which polls showed Hillary winning handily...

[Angel Eyes]

About that

Kyle Rittenhouse to file lawsuit against Biden campaign for libel, attorney says
https://www.lawofficer.com/kyle-rittenhouse-to-file-lawsuit-against-biden-campaign-for-libel-attorney-says/

Good.

[Hawkmoon]

Now you're on to something.

It seems as though an obvious way to ensure fairness would be to both have an on-screen timer, and make the muting automatic. The moderator would have to turn on the speaking candidate's microphone, and the same switch would start a timer. Once it times out, it would automatically mute the candidate, and turn on his opponent's microphone. Once that times out, it could be reset to the next time interval, for rebuttals, or the next question, or whatever.

I agree. This is how it should be done.

I have attended town meetings on contentious topics, at which the moderator has allowed public comment but limited speakers to 1 or 2 minutes each. At the end of a speaker's time, the moderator stops them and tells them their time is up. The same is followed at the state legislature, when proposed bills are up for public comment. I don't remember if the time allowed at the legislature is 1 minute or two minutes, but there are no exceptions. When you time is up, the moderator will stop you mid-sentence to announce, "I'm sorry, your time is up. The next speaker will be ____ ."

[RocketMan]

Biden:  "And, by the way, the 20, the 200 mil- the 200,000 people that have died on his watch, how many of those have survived?"

[bedlamite]

[Angel Eyes]

[MechAg94]

I agree. This is how it should be done.

I have attended town meetings on contentious topics, at which the moderator has allowed public comment but limited speakers to 1 or 2 minutes each. At the end of a speaker's time, the moderator stops them and tells them their time is up. The same is followed at the state legislature, when proposed bills are up for public comment. I don't remember if the time allowed at the legislature is 1 minute or two minutes, but there are no exceptions. When you time is up, the moderator will stop you mid-sentence to announce, "I'm sorry, your time is up. The next speaker will be ____ ."

But that is NOT the same format at all.  I really wouldn't want the other candidate to be on stage at all if their microphone is turned off.  Just do separate events or times with each one if you are going to do that. 

During the 2016 Republican primary, the last 3 candidates standing did a session where the moderator had each candidate on for 30 minutes or so and asked the same set of questions to each one.  That is more like what you are asking for. 

The next debate is a town hall style.  I don't expect the same sort of thing to happen, but there will be plenty of back and forth.  I think with these two candidates, that is what you will get.

[Ben]

Well, debate #2 should go much better with the unbiased moderator.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/moderator-for-second-presidential-debate-interned-for-biden-worked-for-ted-kennedy

[Angel Eyes]

[AZRedhawk44]

I'm astounded at just how awful that debate was.

I don't think I've seen a coherent, issue-focused Presidential debate in 20 years.

But this was so unfocused, superficial and talking-point oriented that it was tailor-made for the ADHD 3-second-soundbyte market.

Both of them are noisily flapping rectums.  Both of them are narcissists.  Both of them are the offal of the political process of constantly choosing the lesser of two evils.  Of constantly bifurcating every issue into a two party camp, where each camp MUST have a differing stance on every possible issue, just to be contrarian.  Of concealing your diseased intentions by wrapping them in sunshine and hoping no one notices.  Of peddling spite for those on the "other" side in such a vitriolic way that the spite garners you support.

Anyone who votes for either of these people, IS THE PROBLEM.  Not those who abstain.  Voters put these belching bowel movements in human form into power.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm astounded at just how awful that debate was.

I don't think I've seen a coherent, issue-focused Presidential debate in 20 years.

But this was so unfocused, superficial and talking-point oriented that it was tailor-made for the ADHD 3-second-soundbyte market.

Both of them are noisily flapping rectums.  Both of them are narcissists.  Both of them are the offal of the political process of constantly choosing the lesser of two evils.  Of constantly bifurcating every issue into a two party camp, where each camp MUST have a differing stance on every possible issue, just to be contrarian.  Of concealing your diseased intentions by wrapping them in sunshine and hoping no one notices.  Of peddling spite for those on the "other" side in such a vitriolic way that the spite garners you support.

Anyone who votes for either of these people, IS THE PROBLEM.  Not those who abstain.  Voters put these belching bowel movements in human form into power.

You're placing too much importance on what Trump says, and how he says it. His record on policy redeems him, at least in comparison to what Biden or Clinton would do with the office.

Or, as a friend of mine said to a NeverTrumper (now a left-wing Democrat), "Forget what he says; look at what he does."